Abstract

Footnotes (353)

Using the URL or DOI link below will
ensure access to this page indefinitely

Based on your IP address, your paper is being delivered by:

New York, USA

Processing request.

Illinois, USA

Processing request.

Brussels, Belgium

Processing request.

Seoul, Korea

Processing request.

California, USA

Processing request.

If you have any problems downloading this paper,please click on another Download Location above, or view our FAQFile name: SSRN-id1392541. ; Size: 788K

You will receive a perfect bound, 8.5 x 11 inch, black and white printed copy of this PDF document with a glossy color cover. Currently shipping to U.S. addresses only. Your order will ship within 3 business days. For more details, view our FAQ.

Quantity:Total Price = $9.99 plus shipping (U.S. Only)

If you have any problems with this purchase, please contact us for assistance by email: Support@SSRN.com or by phone: 877-SSRNHelp (877 777 6435) in the United States, or +1 585 442 8170 outside of the United States. We are open Monday through Friday between the hours of 8:30AM and 6:00PM, United States Eastern.

Rethinking Judicial Deference to Legislative Fact-Finding

It is traditionally assumed that the role of ascertaining and evaluating the social facts underlying a statute belongs to the legislatures. The courts in turn are tasked with deciding the law and must defer to legislative fact-finding on relevant issues of social fact. This simplistic formula, however, does not accurately describe the courts’ confused approach to legislative fact-finding. Although the courts often speak in terms of deference, they follow no consistent or predictable pattern in deciding whether to defer in a given case. Moreover, blanket judicial deference to legislative fact-finding would not be a wise general rule. Because social fact-finding plays a decisive role in constitutional analysis, blind judicial deference would undermine the courts’ responsibility to protect basic individual rights and liberties. Judicial treatment of legislative fact-finding is thus sorely in need of a coherent theory.

This Article proposes a new approach, a paradigm of selective independent judicial review of social facts. Under this model, the courts should independently review the factual foundation of legislation that curtails basic individual rights, even when those rights do not receive strict or heightened scrutiny. This approach is unique in ensuring a baseline protection for important individual rights, including emerging rights, while respecting the division of power between the branches of government. The paradigm is needed because, this Article asserts, legislatures are poorly positioned to gather and assess facts dispassionately, especially when addressing laws that restrict controversial or minority rights. The process of fact-finding in federal trial courts ensures a superior factual record when such rights are at stake. This Article illustrates the courts’ and legislatures’ contrasting capacities for fact-finding through case studies, including “partial-birth abortion,” gay parenting, and indecency on the Internet. Moreover, the Article argues, because of the courts’ traditional and vital role in protecting basic individual rights, the proposed paradigm honors constitutional structural principles.